Advertisement

Environmental Management

, Volume 57, Issue 3, pp 585–600 | Cite as

Paying for Forest Ecosystem Services: Voluntary Versus Mandatory Payments

  • Gabrielle E. Roesch-McNallyEmail author
  • Sergey S. Rabotyagov
Article

Abstract

The emergence of new markets for forest ecosystem services can be a compelling opportunity for market diversification for private forest landowners, while increasing the provision of public goods from private lands. However, there is limited information available on the willingness-to-pay (WTP) for specific forest ecosystem services, particularly across different ecosystem market mechanisms. We utilize survey data from Oregon and Washington households to compare marginal WTP for forest ecosystem services and the total WTP for cost-effective bundles of forest ecosystem services obtained from a typical Pacific Northwest forest across two value elicitation formats representing two different ecosystem market mechanisms: an incentive-compatible choice experiment involving mandatory tax payments and a hypothetical private provision scenario modeled as eliciting contributions to the preferred forest management alternative via a provision point mechanism with a refund. A representative household’s total WTP for the average forest management program was estimated at $217.59 per household/year under a mandatory tax mechanism and $160.44 per household/per year under a voluntary, crowdfunding-style, contribution mechanism; however, these estimates are not statistically different. Marginal WTP estimates were assessed for particular forest ecosystem service attributes including water quality, carbon storage, mature forest habitat, and public recreational access. This study finds that survey respondents place significant economic value on forest ecosystem services in both elicitation formats and that the distributions of the marginal WTP are not statistically significantly different.

Keywords

Forest ecosystem service Provision point mechanism Preference elicitation Stated choice Payment mechanism Crowdfunding 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank the U.S. National Institute of Food and Agriculture for providing the financial support for this research through Grant WNZ-1398. We further thank Prof. Sandor Toth and Prof. Gregory Ettl for their comments on the early versions of this work. All remaining errors, if any, are our own.

References

  1. Adamowicz W, Louviere J, Swait J (1998) Introduction to attribute based stated choice methods. Final Report for NOAA and the US Department of CommerceGoogle Scholar
  2. Aldanondo-Ochoa AM, Almonsa-Saez C (2009) The private provision of the public environment: consumer preferences for organic production systems. Land Use Econ 26:669–682. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2008.09.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alig RJ, Plantinga AJ, Ahn S, Kline J (2003) Land use changes involving forestry in the United States: 1952 to 1997, with projections to 2050. In: USDA forest service general technical report PNW-GTR-587, PortlandGoogle Scholar
  4. Barrio M, Loureiro ML (2010) A meta-analysis of contingent valuation forest studies. Ecol Econ 69(5):1023–1030CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Batker D, Schmidt R, Harrison-Cox J, Lovell B (2010) The whole economy of the snohomish: the essential economics of ecosystem services. A report prepared for Snohomish County, EverettGoogle Scholar
  6. Berninger K, Adamowicz W, Kneeshaw D, Messier C (2010) Sustainable forest management preferences of interest groups in three regions with different levels of industrial forestry: an exploratory attribute-based choice experiment. J Environ Manag 46:117–133. doi: 10.1007/s00267-010-9507-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Beuter JH, Alig RJ (2004) Forestland values. J For 102:4–8Google Scholar
  8. Boxall P, Adamowicz WL, Moon A (2009) Complexity in choice experiments: choice of the status quo alternative and implications for welfare measurement. Aust J Agric Res Econ 53(4):503–519CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Boyd J (2010) Ecosystem services and climate adaptation. Resources for the future issue brief 10–16Google Scholar
  10. Bulte E, Gerking S, List JA, De Zeeuw A (2005) The effect of varying the causes of environmental problems on stated WTP values: evidence from a field study. J Environ Econ Manag 49(2):330–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bush G, Hanley N, Moro M, Rondeau D (2013) Measuring the local costs of conservation: a provision point mechanism for eliciting willingness to accept compensation. Land Econ 89(3):490–513CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Carlssonn F, Martinsson P (2001) Do hypothetical and actual marginal willingness to pay differ in choice experiments?: Application to the valuation of the environment. J Environ Econ Manag 41(2):179–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Carson R, Groves T (2007) Incentive and information properties of preference questions. Environ Res Econ 37:181–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cashore B, Auld G, Newsom D (2003) Forest certification (eco-labeling) programs and their policy-making authority: explaining divergence among North American and European case studies. For Pol Econ 5:225–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Champ PA, Flores NE, Brown TC, Chivers J (2002) Contingent valuation and incentives. Land Econ 78(4):591–604CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Chang JB, Lusk JL (2011) Mixed logit models: accuracy and software choice. J App Econ 26(1):167–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Chee YE (2004) An ecological perspective on the valuation of ecosystem services. Bio Cons 120(4):549–565CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cochran B, Logue C (2011) A watershed approach to improve water quality: case study of clean water services’ Tualatin River Program1Google Scholar
  19. Collins JP, Vossler CA (2009) Incentive compatibility tests of choice experiment value elicitation questions. J Enviro Econ Manag 58(2):226–235Google Scholar
  20. Costanza R, d’Arge R, de Groot R et al (1997) The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387:253–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Czajkowski M, Bartczak A, Giergiczny M, Navrud S, Żylicz T (2014) Providing preference-based support for forest ecosystem service management. For Pol Econ 39:1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Daily GC (1997) Nature’s services. Societal dependence on natural ecosystems. Island Press, Washington, D.C, p 392Google Scholar
  23. Davis H, Midghall INC (2010) Oregon forests values and beliefs study. A report prepared for OR For Res Inst and OR DOF. http://www.oregon.gov/odf/board/docs/ofri_vb_study_2010/ofri_2010_report_june.pdf Accessed 15 January 2011
  24. Deal RL, Cochran B, LaRocco G (2012) Bundling of ecosystem services to increase forestland value and enhance sustainable forest management. For Pol Econ 17:69–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Freeman AM III, Herriges JA, Kling CL (2014) The measurement of environmental and resource values: theory and methods. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  26. Garber-Yonts B, Kerkvliet J, Johnson R (2004) Public values for biodiversity conservation policies in the Oregon Coast range. For Sci 50(5):589–602Google Scholar
  27. Greene WH (2003) Econometric analysis. Pearson Education India, DelhiGoogle Scholar
  28. Groothuis PA, Whitehead JC (2009) The provision point mechanism and scenario rejection in contingent valuation. Agric Res Econ Rev 38(2):271Google Scholar
  29. Halsey K (2010) Ecosystem services-a framework for thinking about sustainability. Oregon State Bar-Sustainability SectionGoogle Scholar
  30. Hamilton SF, Sunding DL, Zilberman D (2003) Public goods and the value of product quality regulations: The case of food safety. J Pub Econ 87(3–4):799–817CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hanemann WM (1984) Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete responses. Am J Ag Econ 66(3):332–341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hanley N, Wright RE, Alvarez-Farizo B (2006) Estimating the economic value of improvements in river ecology using choice experiments: an application to the water framework directive. J Environ Manag 78(2):183–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hensher DA, Rose JM, Greene GH (2005) Applied choice analysis: a primer. Cambridge University Press, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Herriges J, Kling C, Liu CC, Tobias J (2010) What are the consequences of consequentiality? J Environ Econ Manag 59(1):67–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hill MRJ, McMaster DG, Harrison T, Hershmiller A, Plews T (2011) A reverse auction for wetland restoration in the Assiniboine River Watershed, Saskatchewan. Can J Agric Econ 59(2):245–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hörisch J (2015) Crowdfunding for environmental ventures: an empirical analysis of the influence of environmental orientation on the success of crowdfunding initiatives. J Clean Prod (in press)Google Scholar
  37. Jakobsson KM, Dragun AK (1996) Contingent valuation and endangered species: methodological issues and applications. Edward Elgar Publishing, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  38. Jorgensen BS, Syme GJ, Bishop BJ, Nancarrow BE (1999) Protest responses in contingent valuation. Environ Res Econ 14:131–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Keohane NO, Revesz RL, Stavins RN (1998) The choice of regulatory instruments in environmental policy. Harv Environ Law Rev 22:313Google Scholar
  40. Kollert W, Lagan P (2007) Do certified tropical logs fetch a market premium?: a comparative price analysis from Sabah, Malaysia. For Pol Econ 9(7):862–868CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Krieger DJ (2001) The economic value of forest ecosystem services: a review. Report prepared for the Wilderness Society, Washington, D.CGoogle Scholar
  42. Lindhjem H (2007) 20 years of stated preference valuation of non-timber benefits from Fennoscandian forests: a meta-analysis. J For Econ 12(4):251–277Google Scholar
  43. Loomis J (2005) Economic values without prices: the importance of nonmarket values and valuation for information public policy debates. Choices Mag 20(3):179–182Google Scholar
  44. Lorenzo AB, Blanche CA, Qi Y, Guidry MM (2000) Assessing residents willingness to pay to preserve the community urban forest: a small-city case study. J Arboric 26(6):319–325Google Scholar
  45. Lusk JL, Schroeder TC (2004) Are choice experiments incentive compatible? a test with quality differentiated beef steaks. Amer J Ag Econ 86(2):467–482Google Scholar
  46. Mollick E (2014) The dynamics of crowdfunding: an exploratory study. J Bus Ventur 29(1):1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Montgomery CA, Helvoigt TL (2006) Changes in attitudes about importance and willingness to pay for salmon recovery in Oregon. J Environ Manag 78:330–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Moon A (2005) Assessing the impacts of complexity in stated preference methods. University of Alberta, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  49. Murphy JJ, Stevens T, Weatherhead D (2005) Is cheap talk effective at eliminating hypothetical bias in a provision point mechanism? Environ Res Econ 30(3):327–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Newell LW, Swallow SK (2013) Real-payment choice experiments: valuing forested wetlands and spatial attributes within a landscape context. Ecol Econ 92:37–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Oregon Department of Forestry (2011) Oregon: forest facts and figures. http://library.state.or.us/repository/2013/201305161432344/2011.pdf. Accessed May 2015
  52. Pagiola S, von Ritter K, Bishop J (2004) Assessing the economic value of ecosystem conservation. World Bank, Washington, D.C. https://www.openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/18391. Accessed 8 June 2015
  53. Parks PJ, Murray BC (1994) Land attributes and land allocation: nonindustrial forest use in the Pacific Northwest. For Sci 40(3):558–575Google Scholar
  54. Quinn M (2013) Forest stewardship council. Encyclopedia of corporate social responsibility. Springer, Berlin, pp 1146–1149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Rabotyagov SS, Lin S (2013) Small forest landowner preferences for working forest conservation contract attributes: a case of Washington State, USA. J For Econ 19(3):307–330Google Scholar
  56. Rabotyagov SS, Tóth SF, Ettl GJ (2013) Testing the design variables of ECOSEL: a market mechanism for forest ecosystem services. For Sci 59(3):303–321Google Scholar
  57. Raudsepp-Hearne C, Peterson GD, Bennett EM (2010) Ecosystem service bundles for analyzing tradeoffs in diverse landscapes. PNAS 107(11):5242–5247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Rondeau D, Schulze WD, Poe GL (1999) Voluntary revelation of the demand for public goods using a provision point mechanism. J Pub Econ 72:455–470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Rondeau D, Poe GL, Schulze WD (2005) VCM or PPM? A comparison of the performance of two voluntary public goods mechanisms. J Pub Econ 89(8):1581–1592CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Rose SK, Clark J, Poe GL, Rondeau D, Schulze WD (2002) The private provision of public goods: tests of a provision point mechanism for funding green power programs. Res Energy Econ 24(1–2):131–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Selman SJ, Greenhalgh MS, Taylor M, Guiling J (2008) Paying for environmental performance: potential cost savings using a reverse auction in program sign-up. WRI Pol note environmental markets No 5, vol 3. World Resources Institute, Washington D.C, pp 1–6Google Scholar
  62. Shapansky B, Adamowicz W, Boxall P (2003) Measuring forest resource values: an assessment of choice experiments and preference construction methods as public involvement tools. Department of Rural Economy, University of Alberta, EdmontonGoogle Scholar
  63. Stanton T, Echavarria M, Hamilton K, Ott C (2010) State of watershed payments: an emerging marketplace. Forest-trends. http://www.forest-trends.org/documents/files/doc_2438.pdf. Accessed 8 June 2015
  64. Stenger A, Harou P, Navrud S (2009) Valuing environmental goods and services derived from the forests. J For Econ 15(1):1–14Google Scholar
  65. Stern PC, Dietz T, Abel T, Guagnano GA, Kalof L (1999) A value-belief-norm theory of support for social movements: the case of environmentalism. Hum Ecol Rev 6(2):81–97Google Scholar
  66. Swallow SK (2013) Demand-side value for ecosystem services and implications for innovative markets: experimental perspectives on the possibility of private markets for public goods. Ag Res Econ Rev 42(1):33–56Google Scholar
  67. Tóth SF, Ettl GJ, Rabotyagov SS (2010) ECOSEL: an auction mechanism for forest ecosystem services. Math Comput For Nat Res Sci 2(2):99–116Google Scholar
  68. Tóth SF, Ettl GJ, Könnyű N, Rabotyagov SS, Rogers LW, Comnick JM (2013) ECOSEL: multi-objective optimization to sell forest ecosystem services. For Pol Econ 35:73–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Train K (2009) Qualitative choice methods with simulation, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. U.S. Census Bureau (2012) State and county quickfacts: Washington State/Oregon StateGoogle Scholar
  71. Vossler CA, Evans MF (2009) Bridging the gap between the field and the lab: Environmental goods, policy maker input, and consequentiality. J Environ Econ Manag 58(3):338–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Vossler CA, Doyon M, Rondeau D (2012) Truth in consequentiality: theory and field evidence on discrete choice experiments. Am Econ J 4(4):145–171Google Scholar
  73. WA DNR. Forest certification: Washington State Department of Natural Resources. http://www.dnr.wa.gov/BusinessPermits/Topics/TimberSaleAuction/Pages/lm_forest_certification.aspx. Accessed 25 May 2015
  74. WA State Congress House. Forest products industry—landowners conservation Proposals, HB 2541. 61st Congress 2010 Regular Session SB 6256Google Scholar
  75. Wiser RH (2007) Using contingent valuation to explore willingness to pay for renewable energy: a comparison of collective and voluntary payment vehicles. Ecol Econ 62(3–4):419–432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Xu W, Lippke BW, Perez-Garcia J (2003) Valuing biodiversity, aesthetics, and job losses associated with ecosystem management using stated preferences. For Sci 49(2):247–257Google Scholar
  77. Zobrist KW, Lippke BR (2007) Economic costs of different riparian management regulations in the Pacific Northwest. West J Appl For 22(1):36–41Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gabrielle E. Roesch-McNally
    • 1
    Email author
  • Sergey S. Rabotyagov
    • 2
  1. 1.Sociology and Sustainable AgricultureIowa State UniversityAmesUSA
  2. 2.School of Environmental and Forest SciencesUniversity of WashingtonSeattleUSA

Personalised recommendations